George Soros on the Coming U.S. Class War

[Guisslapp]

Just some website I Binged up. Whether the mark is $300K or $237K is irrelevant. The top 5% income earners pay 46% of the income tax. But, you are right, as has been demonstrated many times, smart people don't play the silly games of the tax-n-spend DC establishment.

Spending...

There's about $2.7 trillion in so-called "mandatory" spending and $1.3 trillion in "discretionary" spending.

Interestingly, the category of "Medicare & Health" appear in both....about 12% of discretionary and a whopping 43% of mandatory. The Military spending ALL appears under discretionary, about 55% of that portion. Funny thing as it regards the role of the federal government, the Constitution mandates "provide for the common (national) defense". The rest of the crap in the Federal budget has been put there due to politics and The Swamp creating relevancy for itself (for the most part).

The lion's share of mandatory spending, about 50%, is social security, unemployment & labor....whatever that actually means. So, 93% of the mandatory budget is Medicare, social security, and that labor stuff.

What is not shown, on this particular website, is interest on the national debt, which is running about 10% of the budget, approaching $400 billion annually. Actual number shown for 2018 is $384 billion. Have to figure it has, or soon will, top the $400 billion mark.

So....is it possible to raise taxes on the top 5%, or so, without impacting their economic/financial activity, and maybe generate an additional $400 billion to service the debt? Even if that happened (in a perfect world) we would still be digging a deeper hole with the annual $1 trillion deficit.

Okay...so let's raise income taxes on the other 95% of "income tax payers." After all, collectively, that 95% accounts for 54% of the revenue stream into the US Treasury. Can $500 billion be raised without impacting, too harshly, these taxpayers? If yes, then the other $500 billion can be saved via REAL spending cuts in the Federal Budget.

PLEASE NOTE: I said REAL cuts. Not the political games The Swamp plays by calling reductions in increases "cuts."

Where can we find $500 billion in REAL cuts in the Federal Budget? Anyone care to offer some suggestions?

You could go a long way to fill that gap by cutting all the farm assistance, which is also helping fuel our nations diabetes crisis.

Then you can roll back the Trump tax cuts which are adding to the deficit.

The real problem is that Americans live longer, retire earlier, and consume more expensive health care than when Social Security and Medicare rolled out. Without Medicare, insurance for Seniors would be hellaciously expensive. Without Social Security most Seniors would find it near impossible to make ends meet. Unless we want to abandon our elderly, there needs to be a sustainable solution to funding these entitlements.

[brtransplant]

You could go a long way to fill that gap by cutting all the farm assistance, which is also helping fuel our nations diabetes crisis.

Then you can roll back the Trump tax cuts which are adding to the deficit.

The real problem is that Americans live longer, retire earlier, and consume more expensive health care than when Social Security and Medicare rolled out. Without Medicare, insurance for Seniors would be hellaciously expensive. Without Social Security most Seniors would find it near impossible to make ends meet. Unless we want to abandon our elderly, there needs to be a sustainable solution to funding these entitlements.

You're dead on with your assessment of farm subsidies as well as our worsening diabetes epidemic (a ketogenic diet works wonderfully to reverse Type II diabetes, by the way). The problem is, anything we do now will simply be too little, too late. Kind of like the smoker that gets diagnosed with lung cancer or has a heart attack. His stopping smoking at that point is probably useless, but most smokers do FINALLY find a way to once they're faced with a life and death health crisis. Our nation can start sound financial budgeting practices today, but that won't change the inevitable outcome that we're facing. There's only two solution's that could ever allow us to pay off the debt and unfunded liabilities that we've accrued. We can either inflate our way out of it, and pay everybody off with worthless US dollars, or we can declare bankruptcy. Either way, everyone holding on to US debt will get stiffed.

[PawDawg]

Y'all are misinformed regarding "farm assistance". The farm assistance portion of the farm bill is minuscule compared to the free food portion. No regulations on what the have to purchase. Outback and Chilies are acceptable "food"

[dawg80]

According to this source....something called the Washington Post...the 2019 budget has about $960 billion allocated toward "farm programs." Of that amount, 80% is for food stamps, 9% to help farmers with "crop insurance," and 6% for "conservation programs," another 5% for "commodity programs" (which is food give aways).

Side note on the commodities: I just had a renter jump their lease i.e. move out in the middle of the night, had the electricity cut off (or the city cut it off due to unpaid bills), and left behind a mess. Included in that mess were 4 large blocks of cheese, unopened, dozens of eggs, and various other food items, all "free" to the renters courtesy of taxpayers. There was rump roasts, still packaged, packs of pork chops and hamburgers, large bottles of ketchup, mustard, mayo, like 3 of each. So on and so forth... Clearly this family didn't need the food commodities...or probably they know they can simply and easily get them replaced and didn't care.

Anyway, according to the WAPO, food "hand outs" account for 85% of the total farm assistance budget. That's about $816 billion. Huge chunk of the budget.

[DawgyNWindow]

Then you can roll back the Trump tax cuts which are adding to the deficit.

This is a dem talking point, but the facts do not support it. Are we not collecting record taxes AFTER the tax cuts took place? If the taxes were raised back to where they were, would that not stop some of the economic activity that has created this record tax intake?

As for social security, I would opt out entirely if they just gave me back what they stole from me for the program (they can even keep the percentage of my salary my employer paid on my behalf....and reduced my potential wages accordingly to be able to afford it).

As for Medicare, doesn't medicare for all seem like a really stupid solution given our debt problem? Or are you assuming taxes would be raised to support it, which would further decrease economic activity required for further taxes.

[Guisslapp]

This is a dem talking point, but the facts do not support it. Are we not collecting record taxes AFTER the tax cuts took place? If the taxes were raised back to where they were, would that not stop some of the economic activity that has created this record tax intake?

As for social security, I would opt out entirely if they just gave me back what they stole from me for the program (they can even keep the percentage of my salary my employer paid on my behalf....and reduced my potential wages accordingly to be able to afford it).

As for Medicare, doesn't medicare for all seem like a really stupid solution given our debt problem? Or are you assuming taxes would be raised to support it, which would further decrease economic activity required for further taxes.

Given the way health care costs escalate dramatically as you age and the costs can be overwhelming in the event of a major health event requiring a hospital stay, it makes sense to spread the costs and risks across the population. That way you can pay a similar rate throughout your life instead of leaving yourself vulnerable to market pressures when you are fixed income. But for the deal to work you need young heathy people that are lower cost users of health care to pay more than they are likely to need during the first part of their lives. BUT, like social security, that deal can only be fair if they know they are going to receive the same entitlement that they helped support.

So, yeah, Medicare for all seems like a really logical way to manage all that. You just need the funding mechanism to be non-discretionary and adequate.

[PawDawg]

According to this source....something called the Washington Post...the 2019 budget has about $960 billion allocated toward "farm programs." Of that amount, 80% is for food stamps, 9% to help farmers with "crop insurance," and 6% for "conservation programs," another 5% for "commodity programs" (which is food give aways).

Side note on the commodities: I just had a renter jump their lease i.e. move out in the middle of the night, had the electricity cut off (or the city cut it off due to unpaid bills), and left behind a mess. Included in that mess were 4 large blocks of cheese, unopened, dozens of eggs, and various other food items, all "free" to the renters courtesy of taxpayers. There was rump roasts, still packaged, packs of pork chops and hamburgers, large bottles of ketchup, mustard, mayo, like 3 of each. So on and so forth... Clearly this family didn't need the food commodities...or probably they know they can simply and easily get them replaced and didn't care.

Anyway, according to the WAPO, food "hand outs" account for 85% of the total farm assistance budget. That's about $816 billion. Huge chunk of the budget.

crickets from the ignorant who think the farm bill is for farmers.

[Guisslapp]

crickets from the ignorant who think the farm bill is for farmers.

Who thinks that? I am talking about the 200 billion for farmers.

[PawDawg]

Who thinks that? I am talking about the 200 billion for farmers.

This is what you said...

"You could go a long way to fill that gap by cutting all the farm assistance, which is also helping fuel our nations diabetes crisis."

How will cutting $200B (of almost $1trillion) from the crop insurance program help fight diabetes?

Like a typical socialist, you are trying to get the crumb money from those who actually contribute to the economy instead of the 80% of mostly waste for non-contributors to the economy. You are so mixed up about what makes the world go 'round.

[Guisslapp]

This is what you said...

"You could go a long way to fill that gap by cutting all the farm assistance, which is also helping fuel our nations diabetes crisis."

How will cutting $200B (of almost $1trillion) from the crop insurance program help fight diabetes?

Like a typical socialist, you are trying to get the crumb money from those who actually contribute to the economy instead of the 80% of mostly waste for non-contributors to the economy. You are so mixed up about what makes the world go 'round.

Dawg80 said 500 billion is the delta that needs to be filled.

200B in farm assistance (not the near 800B in food stamps) plus roll back of Trump tax cuts gets you most of the way there. Then a little more targeted pruning, especially in contracts to support the military.

Problem solved.

[PawDawg]

Problem solved.

Problem solved by taking away from your hero Pelosi and the other socialist like you who think taking from productive citizens instead of moochers is good for America.

... and you say you didn't like Obama. You are Obama.

[brtransplant]

crickets from the ignorant who think the farm bill is for farmers.

I admit that I'm no expert on farm subsidies. My comment was based solely on my personal experience with a friend of mine whose multi, multi millionaire family receives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for NOT growing sugar cane on some of the thousands of acres that they own. These people could use this land to grow some other crop, or make it into pasture, or grow trees on it for all I care, but I resent our government subsidizing them to let it sit idle. In my opinion, any kind of subsidy for farmers is stupid, even if it is only 10% of the total spent annually on this BS program.

[PawDawg]

I admit that I'm no expert on farm subsidies. My comment was based solely on my personal experience with a friend of mine whose multi, multi millionaire family receives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for NOT growing sugar cane on some of the thousands of acres that they own. These people could use this land to grow some other crop, or make it into pasture, or grow trees on it for all I care, but I resent our government subsidizing them to let it sit idle. In my opinion, any kind of subsidy for farmers is stupid, even if it is only 10% of the total spent annually on this BS program.

What you describe is one of many conservation programs that the socialist liberals crafted many years ago. These programs are not for "farmers". The programs are for land owners. Many, many billionaire liberals own thousands of acres and take advantage of these programs. Here is a list to get you started...

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-an...programs/index

[Guisslapp]

I admit that I'm no expert on farm subsidies. My comment was based solely on my personal experience with a friend of mine whose multi, multi millionaire family receives hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for NOT growing sugar cane on some of the thousands of acres that they own. These people could use this land to grow some other crop, or make it into pasture, or grow trees on it for all I care, but I resent our government subsidizing them to let it sit idle. In my opinion, any kind of subsidy for farmers is stupid, even if it is only 10% of the total spent annually on this BS program.

Yes, that is the Conservation Reserve Program and one of the several I am referring to. The other two provide insurance.

The Heritage Foundation was against them when they were created, so it is kind of surprising that a “conservative” such as Pawdawg would all of a sudden be for them.

https://www.heritage.org/agriculture...isky-taxpayers

[PawDawg]

Yes, that is the Conservation Reserve Program and one of the several I am referring to. The other two provide insurance.

The Heritage Foundation was against them when they were created, so it is kind of surprising that a “conservative” such as Pawdawg would all of a sudden be for them.

https://www.heritage.org/agriculture...isky-taxpayers

You said we need to cut "farm assistance". This is not farm assistance. It is land owner assistance.

Do some real research before you take up arms with the socialists think tanks.